tv [untitled] August 5, 2012 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT
resolution the commission passed about a year and a half ago, but but we do hear what the department has in mind and that we get that information tonight with the agreement not to vote on that but to reschedule about for a later time. to the commissioners agree with that type of approach? >> i was on the list to propose that you take action part off. let's have a discussion. let's find out what the department has in mind. let's take public comments. let's talk about the steps in the resolution, and let's move forward from here. let's take the action item part of tonight.
commissioner chan: thank you for during my concern. i would modify my motion to remove the item, and hopefully, i still have a second, and i want to recognize his family being here tonight. i know it must have been extremely difficult to be here tonight and to speak out. it is not often we speak up about mental health issues, so i appreciate the hard work and the bravery it took to do that, and i want to give some background as to this resolution. i was put on this committee around midnight. i was waiting for the department to take a lead.
i have been helping with a number of other issues, and the department never convened a meeting to my knowledge, and it seems like this only came up because of the recent officered-involved shooting. the first time i heard about a taser in a long time and was about the meeting about this officer involved shooting, and we need to hear about this so buckthe death not be politicize. i also want to point out we only have three out of eighth trainings. it has been a year and a half. we have only had one meeting every six months, which is much slower.
i appreciate what you have done so far, but a lot more needs to be done. it would be disastrous to arm them with lasers -- tasers with no protocol in place. commissioner marshall: we have had robust discussions about tasers before. we had a long and robust discussion under chief gascon. we have had discussions in and out. here it is. the dilemma we have is that we
did come up with a way to deal with robust discussion, which is resolution. gooi am hearing the commissiones try to come up with a way out of that. you are bringing it up. that is the cheese prerogatives. i am not exactly sure how. one idea i have heard is to take the item off and have a discussion. we have to decide in spite of this resolution if we want to hear what the chief has to say. i do not know what you want to come up with again. this may be added to the
process. the problem is we do have a resolution, and we have to decide what we want to allow tonight to hear this new idea, because this is a different idea that we have heard. it is a different approach. let me be clear. we have had a lot of discussion time and time again about hazer' -- tasers at this commission. we have got to figure out how we want to deal with what the chief has asked in light of the resolution we have passed, because we are all bound by that. so far it is no action, just discussion to hear what he has got to save. -- say. we are going to figure out how
we can move that along. of what was that the resolution? it is still on the books. that is the presentation we left with us to move forward. i do not know what you want to do. you can table it or hear what the chief has to say. rice is helpful to hear from commissioner -- >> it is helpful to hear how 18 months when by without any action on behalf of a number of the parties involved, but i think there were two members of the police department involved in this work. i think it is a real concern to the community, and i am concerned is a year and a half later company, and this is a conversation that has gone on for quite awhile. it appears they have done a
significant amount of work in opening up the idea of the possibility of tasers. i think he is right that we have got a new chief. i think it is a chief the commission has gone through a great deal in selecting. i think it is tragic, and it is not ok. for us to take this off the agenda and not talk about it is not acceptable. we need to talk about this, and whether we take action will be a matter of a motion. >> the key question is do you want to hear what he has to say. not you. you are going to react to what he has to say. you want to hear it tonight. you want to hear it next week. i guess it is for us, do we want
to hear what he has to say. in spite of the fact this resolution was adopted. it is not action tonight. this is listening. >> no one has said let's not hear what the chief has to say. i have not said that, and i do not think anyone has said that. i would like to hear what the chief has to say about this program. we also have a resolution. i have not said what the voyage or throw out the resolution. i have said let's hear what the chief has to say and what through the steps -- and walk through the steps. no one on this panel has greater respect for the chiefs than i do, and i also agree -- every conversation you learn something
more. as someone who probably knows the least about it, and i need to learn something, and i can learn from the chief, from what these people have to say, and certainly from what these people have to say, and i can learn from walking through the steps of this resolution. i am not saying to avoid our responsibility of the resolution. let's do all of that. that is what i need to do before we vote. >> can be amend it? praxair was a motion on the floor made by commissioner -- >> there was a motion on the floor made by commissioner chan to remove item three. that was seconded to remove the
possible action report. >> is there any more discussion on that? >> anything you would like to andd? >> here is my take. i think the chiefs did this with good reason. not only does he want to get this moving, but i agree that we should hear this tonight. this should be a very calm discussion, looking at the facts, analyzing what is best for the community and what is best for the officers. they, too, are affected by this. i have heard a lot of criticism of the police tonight. unfortunately, the police are the ones that are called to clean up the messes that are not created by them, so i think we
should hear what we need to hear tonight from the presenters on both sides, and nobody should be used as a political tool by bringing families of someone who was recently killed. we need to hear discussions about what is best for the public and what is best for the police. >> let me just say, the past discussions have been exactly that, so i would assume these discussions would be the same way. >> i would ask everyone listened to the discussions. we have the presentation, and at that point we would decide if it is going to be an action item. it does not sound like it is going to be an action item, so i suggest we go forward and put it on as an action item down the road. >> i think we should vote on debit. >> take the roll call and remove it as an action item. [calling votes]
vice president marshall: aye. commissioner dejesus: aye, with the understanding if it ever comes back on that we have plenty of notice. commissioner chan: agree that if we put this back on it is not going to be next week. it cannot just be a immediately. goocommissioner kingsly: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. >> let's start with the police departments presentation.
>> the deputy told me risk- management comes under her command, and ali is the department coordinator. glive i am the coordinator for the department costs crisis intervention team effort. i have been the coordinator since 2011. we have trained 74 officers in our department who are members of the team, and we have trained eight members of other agencies. we have also train members of our department of emergency management. we have progressed to such an extent that we are now engaged in conversations with the university of san francisco
relative to getting their involvement in our efforts on par with what has taken place with the university of tennessee and the university of memphis being an integral part of the memphis police department's efforts to make a crisis intervention team more robust, but now as i stand before you today, this is not an issue of mental illness. this is an issue of the department having options available to mitigate the need for legal force -- lethal force. as i have had discussions, i thought it would be most appropriate to have a pilot program where members of the press were the first people -- where members of our department were the first people to receive controlled devices.
the reason is simple. we have invested a significant amount of training. prior to the training on crisis intervention, there is mental health awareness training that 900 members of our department received relative to identifying and being aware of issues surrounding individuals in crisis and mental health. goothe purpose of mental health training took on multiple a bit of a different dynamic, and that was a greater emphasis on the escalation -- deescalation skills, greater understanding of mental illness and the appreciation of challenges in mitigating some of those issues, but as we move forward, the idea is that these officers
would be best positioned to not only come on instances where individuals are in crisis, whether they are momentary crisis, whether it is an issue of history of mental illness, that these officers would be most out in dealing with those circumstances, attempting to they escalates -- deescalate as much as possible and using a less lethal option. i am prepared to show the commission what we haven' been termed an -- but those in terms of size are not the most appropriate readily available for these. looking at a device, the
electronically controlled devices would be appropriate. it has pretty much cornered the market, and it has devices in place in agencies across the country. of the top when the law enforcement agencies in the country, we are the only one that does not have the devices employed. even the memphis police department, which is the benchmark of training, decided it needed to add electronically controlled devices for officers. even prior to the of those officers trained in crisis prevention were provided with the impact weapon, and perhaps this would be a good time to show you exactly what i am talking about.
this is the weapon system that is deployed in memphis with a crisis intervention team. every one of their officers is trained. it is used in the concept of contact and cover. you have the initial officer who does what they can to try to de- escalate based on the skills they have developed, whereas the secondary officer has this system. he is not there all the time, but this system is available in the event force needs to be used to identify a set of
circumstances that goes beyond the individual being a threat to themselves but a threat to the public. and we have not had an incident of lethal force used against an individual who only posed a threat to themselves. as please hold it down. if you continue to speak like that, i am going to have to ask you to leave the room. >> as the most recent event took place, we did realize we did not necessarily have all less lethal option that was readily available and would be appropriate. it leaves the officers with one option, and that is the use of
lethal force. the hope is it would allow the department to embark on a pilot program so only the officers said have been retrained, we do have a class scheduled for october 22, which we hope to be a little larger in terms of the size. we have had losses of about 30 officers, and perhaps the availability of our space and an additional teaching resources will allow for a larger group to be trained, but this group we currently have the represents every working shift and at every district station would be the ones that would go through the training and have these systems deployed. unfortunately, i did not receive any reaching out from any other
organization other than taser international. they offered their services in terms of coming into this commission and discussing the equipment itself and the improvements that have been made. in my discussions with law enforcement agencies, one of the most telling was california highway patrol. i will share these with folks. the california highway patrol -- i am going to have to read these, because the numbers are small. they deployed the taser system in 2007 on a partial basis, and in 2008 dathey employed id on a
department-wide basis. since 2007 they have received a significant 25% decrease in the use of lethal force. the implication is that with the use of other non and less lethal options, they have not had to rely on their firearms in order to mitigate potential public safety issues. other significant issues is they have received a 21.5% reduction in total use of force, department wide. a significant issue is 58% reduction and officers injured from 2007 until 2010. conversely, studies by the
department of justice respectively show about when agencies -- show that when agencies have these weapons deployed, you see a 40% to 50% reduction in injuries to suspect during the course of these encounters, so all in all, you are seeing positive decreases in injuries both to officers and to the public when these weapons systems are deployed, and at the end of the day i believe it was dr. lee who made a presentation in 2010 when he spoke before you, and he indicated -- i was going to quote him, but i seem to have lost my thing. good night he said we are not standing against electronic control devices. what he said was, if i were to be arrested, if i had to be
shot with anything, a taser versus a fire arm, and that is the bottom line. we want to mitigate the need for lethal force while providing another option, and i truly believe if that option was in place on july 18, it would have been a different outcome. >> having gone through two of these presentations, can you explain the difference between the gun you have showed us and the taser? pain compliance would not work with a firearm as opposed to the taser. >> i can do that. you are talking about a 40 millimeter projectile that is very debilitating, and the person on the other end of its typically is going to have an immediate response in terms of
serious injury in most cases. get a weapon systems, the electronic control devices, the purpose of which is to immediately mobilized -- in mobilize that individual, stopping them from engaging -- to immediately immobilize that individual, stopping them from engaging in harm. you see an immediate response. with firearms you do not necessarily see any immediate response in terms of behavior stopping. i was looking at the video from detroit where an individual jump over the counter and began shooting at individual officers inside that enclosed area. that person sustained a lethal shot to the heart but continued to engage the officers for 15 or 20 seconds after having
received the deadly shot, so the difference between the electronic devices and our firearms, you have an immediate response of electronic control devices. you may not necessarily have an immediate response to the firearms. parks throw him out. >> i am hearing from the commit -- >> throw him out. >> i am hearing from the commissioners it is time for this individual to leave. >> [inaudible] i am going to a better place. >> i am sure you will get kicked out of more. >> punk. >> excuse me. do not talk to a commissioner like that. >> do not talk to me like that. >> just for the record, i think
the public, and -- we have had people make comments before, and i do not think throwing the mouth is the thing to do a. >> for the record, and -- throwing them out is the thing to do. >> for the record, i am trying to make a presentation, and he is thriving the route -- depriving the rest of us of our rights. >> we have a power point presentation from taser international to give you more science behind it, and i think it is important to note if the commission approves this program we will go through a normal process in which our note is to compete for designated needs with the designated equipment that will be afforded to the various competing body is out there -- bodies out there.
vice president marshall: a couple of questions. you were a lieutenant. i have sat through this a couple times. i would like to just hear the of the good stuff, but i will not get to do that. i ain't -- to hear the updated stuff, but i will not get to do that. there are only two major police departments that did not have tasers. is that correct? >> i believe there is only one. >> memphis and san francisco, and now it is san francisco.
memphis has now put tasers into their apartment. what is the reason? >> the reason is pretty much what we are facing, and this is the method of planes -- deployed. everyone of them was trained in that. it has it is its -- has its limitations. you do not want officers walking around the community with this strapped around their shoulder. >> even though they have that system we adopted, it was not enough n.? >> correct. >> did the san francisco sheriff's department use tasers? >> it is my understanding they did apply tasers. >> she brought a witness.